IDC v Clark [1992] 1 EGLR 187

Plaintiff and B signed a deed (which described itself as a licence), purporting to bind all successors, to create an opening between their houses through which they could pass.

Defendant bought B’s house, knowing of the ‘licence’, and blocked up the opening on her side.

Plaintiff sued Defendant, claiming the deed was really an easement.

CA denied that an easement was created, but merely a contractual license which was binding only on the persons who signed it and did not create an interest in the property. The description of “licence” was taken as meaning just that.

The description was not overturned and the parties were held not to have intended it to be an easement, despite:

1. The absence of a term allowing determination on reasonable notice;

2. The indefinite terms of the agreement; and

3. The importance attached to the right.